Indians For Guns

Why the lady has been arrested for defending herself? The lady seems to have acted within her legal rights of private defense mentioned in Sections 100, 101, 102 and 103 IPC. Whether intruders were armed or not it is immaterial. Some of the news report were saying the intruders were armed with lathis.

TC wrote:The incident happened in the wee hours today, between 4.40 am 4.45 am, in the posh Short Street area in South Kolkata and located not too far from the official residence of the Police Commissioner and the Shakespeare Sarani police station. The incident has rocked the city. I am posting edited portions of newsreports what are being prepared right now

TC

Mamta Agarwal, owner of a kindergarten school opened fire on a group of intruders, about 17 in number, killing two youths and injuring a third. The gang, it is being alleged, wanted

The dots don't quite connect in this story. Out with the truth...

Another variation of the story. 303 to the best of my knowledge is a pb. http://www.ndtv.com/article/cities/kolk ... ome-cities

Whether the guns were possessed legally or illegally is a different question. The acts of causing death to the intruders seem to be lawful as per her right of private defense.

As a lousy song goes..... "it happens only in India" ...... that you are attacked, you take steps to protect yourself, and are arrested for murder and the attackers are booked for such nice things like "unlawful assembly"!!

What the law has to say , Good boy mentor anything to add to this....

Central Government Act
Section 94 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860
94. Act to which a person is compelled by threats.-- Except murder, and offences against the State punishable with death, nothing is an offence which is done by a person who is compelled to do it by threats, which, at the time of doing it, reasonnably cause the apprehension that instant death to that person will otherwise be the consequence: Provided the person doing the act did not of his own accord, or from a reasonable apprehension of harm to himself short of instant death, place himself in the situation by which he became subject to such constraint. Explanation 1.- A person who, of his own accord, or by reason of a threat of being beaten, joins a gang of dacoits, knowing their character, is not entitled to the benefit of this exception, on the ground of his having been compelled by his associates to do anything that is an offence by law.

Explantion 2.- A person seized by a gang of dacoits, and forced, by threat of instant death, to do a thing which is an offence by law; for example, a smith compelled to take his tools and to force the door of a house for the dacoits to enter and plunder it, is entitled to the benefit of this exception.


Central Government Act
Section 95 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860
95. Act causing slight harm.-- Nothing is an offence by reason that it causes, or that it is intended to cause, or that it is known to be likely to cause, any harm, if that harm is so slight that no person of ordinary sense and temper would complain of such harm. Of the Right of Private Defence


Central Government Act
Section 96 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860
96. Things done in private defence.-- Nothing is an offence which is done in the exercise of the right of private defence.

Central Government Act
Section 97 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860
97. Right of private defence of the body and of property.-- Every person has a right, subject to the restrictions contained in section 99, to defend- First.-- His own body, and the body of any other person, against any offence affecting the human body; Secondly.-- The property, whether movable or immovable, of himself or of any other person, against any act which is an offence falling under the defintion of theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass, or which is an attempt to commit theft, robbery, mischief or criminal trespass.


Central Government Act
Section 98 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860
98. Right of private defence against the act of a person of unsound mind, etc.-- When an act which would otherwise be a certain offence, is not that offence, by reason of the youth, the want of maturity of understanding, the unsoundness of mind or the intoxication of the person doing that act, or by reason of any misconception on the part of that person, every person has the same right of private defence against that act which he would have if the act were that offence. Illustrations
(a) Z, under the influence of madness, attempts to kill A; Z is guilty of no offence. But A has the same right of private defence which he would have if Z were sane.
(b) A enters by night a house which he is legally entitled to enter. Z, in good faith, taking A for a house- breaker, attacks A. Here Z, by attacking A under this misconception, commits no offence. But A has the same right of private defence against Z, which he would have if Z were not acting under that misconception.

Central Government Act
Section 99 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860
99. Acts against which there is no right of private defence.-- There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office, though that act may not be strictly justifiable by law. There is no right of private defence against an act which does not reasonably cause the apprehension of death or of grievous hurt, if done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant acting in good faith under colour of his office though that direction may not be strictly justifiable by law. There is no right of private defence in cases in which there is time to have recourse to protection of the public authorities. Extent to which the right may be exercised. Extent to which the right may be exercised.-- The right of private defence in no case extends to the inflicting of more harm than it is necessary to inflict for the purpose of defence.
Explanation 1.- A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act done, or attempted to be done, by a public servant, as such, unless he knows or has reason to believe, that the person doing the act is such public servant. Explanation 2.- A person is not deprived of the right of private defence against an act done, or attempted to be done, by the direction of a public servant, unless he knows, or has reason to believe, that the person doing the act is acting by such direction, or unless such person states the authority under which he acts, or if he has authority in writing, unless he produces such authority, if demanded.


Central Government Act
Section 100 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860
100. When the right of private defense of the body extends to causing death.-- The right of private defense of the body extends, under the restrictions mentioned in the last preceding section, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the assailant, if the offence which occasions the exercise of the right be of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely:- First.- Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that death will otherwise be the consequence of such assault; Secondly.- Such an assault as may reasonably cause the apprehension that grievous hurt will otherwise be the consequence of such assault; Thirdly.- An assault with the intention of committing rape; Fourthly.- An assault with the intention of gratifying unnatural lust; Fifthly.- An assault with the intention of kidnapping or abducting; Sixthly.- An assault with the intention of wrongfully confining a person, under circumstances which may reasonably cause him to apprehend that he will be unable to have recourse to the public authorities for his release.

Central Government Act
Section 101 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860
101. When such right extends to causing any harm other than death.-- If the offence be not of any of the descriptions enumerated in the last preceding section, the right of private defence of the body does not extend to the voluntary causing of death to the assailant, but does extend, under the restrictions mentioned in section 99, to the voluntary causing to the assailant of any harm other than death.



Central Government Act
Section 102 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860
102. Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of the body.-- The right of private defence of the body commences as soon as a reasonable apprehension of danger to the body arises from an attempt or threat to commit the offence though the offence may not have been committed; and it continues as long as such apprehension of danger to the body continues.

Central Government Act
Section 103 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860
103. When the right of private defence of property extends to causing death.-- The right of private defence of property extends, under the restrictions mentioned in section 99, to the voluntary causing of death or of any other harm to the wrong- doer, if the offence, the committing of which, or the attempting to commit which, occasions the exercise of the right, be an offence of any of the descriptions hereinafter enumerated, namely:- First.- Robbery; Secondly.- House- breaking by night; Thirdly.- Mischief by fire committed on any building, tent or vessel, which building, tent or vessel is used as a human dwelling, or as a place for the custody of property; Fourthly.- Theft, mischief, or house- trespass, under such circumstances as may reasonably cause apprehension that death or grievous hurt will be the consequence, if such right of private defence is not exercised.


Central Government Act
Section 104 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860
104. When such right to causing any harm other than death.-- If the offence, the committing of which, or the attempting to commit which occasions the exercise of the right of private defence, be theft, mischief, or criminal trespass, not of any of the descriptions enumerated in the last preceding section, that right does not extend to the voluntary causing of death, but does extend, subject to the restrictions mentioned in section 99, to the voluntary causing to the wrong- doer of any harm other than death.


Central Government Act
Section 105 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860
105. Commencement and continuance of the right of private defence of property.-- The right of private defence of property commences when a reasonable apprehension of danger to the property commences. The right of private defence of property against theft continues till the offender has effected his retreat with the property or either the assistance of the public authorities is obtained, or the property has been recovered. The right of private defence of property against robbery continues as long as the offender causes or attempts to cause to any person death or hurt or wrongful restraint or as long as the fear of instant death or of instant hurt or of instant personal restraint continues. The right of private defence of property against criminal trespass or mischief continues as long as the offender continues in the commission of criminal trespass or mischief. The right of private defence of property against house- breaking by night continues as long as the house- trespass which has been begun by such house- breaking continues



Central Government Act
Section 106 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860
106. Right of private defence against deadly assault when there is risk of harm to innocent person.-- If in the exercise of the right of private defence against an assault which reasonably causes the apprehension of death, the defender be so situated that he cannot effectually exercise that right without risk of harm to an innocent person, his right of private defence extends to the running of that risk. Illustration A is attacked by a mob who attempt to murder him. He cannot effectually exercise his right of private defence without firing on the mob, and he cannot fire without risk of harming young children who are mingled with the mob. A commits no offence if by so firing he harms any of the children. CHAPTER V OF ABETMENT CHAPTER V OF ABETMENT

Yesterday I posted whatever information was available till evening and whatever the police told reporters. There was no way to cross check every information amid all the chaos though I had serious doubts whether Mamta Agarwal or people in the premises actually had a 9 mm pistol in their possession or whether the police had shown a 9 mm pistol in the seizure list. Since police officers said the two youths were shot with a 9 mm pistol and not 12 bore gun we went with that.

NOTE : From a photo carried by a Bengali daily it appears that while one weapon used by Agarwal and his guards was a 12 bore double barrel the other could be a rifle (possibly a centre fire). But only the barrel and butt of the firearm is visible in the somewhat blur photo I have to cross check. So I have asked a police source of mine to confirm what weapons were exactly used / seized from the spot. This I believe is of extreme importance because presence of prohibited and illegal firearms inside the premises can drastically change the legal implications once the matter goes to court.

Not surprisingly some reporters have come to know that the intruders too had brought firearms. Apparently they knew there were guns in the house. Even local residents say they had heard gunshots at the premises on September 15. So the possibility of an exchange of fire in the wee hours of yesterday cannot be ruled out. However there is no evidence to corroborate this at the moment.

NOTE: I moved away from field reporting years ago and hence have to depend on what young reporters get back with. And few of them know the difference between a shotgun and a pistol. For example, a kid yesterday wrote "single barrel 9 mm pistol."

Will post updates.

TC

Dear TC,
Thanks for bringing the matter in limelight.
I am afraid if the govt.does not deal the incident
firmly, it may lead to anarchy .

Basu

Madness... Will speak to you on the subject in detail.

Dont blame the lady if she becomes a Maoist and forms her own Dalam, if the authorities in the Govt are acting like feudal lords than there will be rebellion for sure.

TC,

Many thanks for starting this thread and all the accurate information that you provided.

It is a sorry state of affairs. Without going into the legal aspects and history of the property dispute, the fact that an unidentified group of men tried to forcibly enter the premises at odd hours itself is sufficient ground to fear for one's life. I wonder how many people will stay unperturbed, without fearing for their lives, if such a large and vocal group tries to forcibly enter their homes. I do think that the lady had every right to protect herself and her companions. That the police were made aware of the threats she has been receiving and that the police station is just 300 metres away further demonstrates the fact that police, with the best of intentions, at best can be a reacting agent than a pro-active agent. Ultimately it befalls the individual to protect his/her life. Based on what I have read so far, I take my hat off to the lady for standing her ground. I do hope that the murder charges will not stick.

Best-
Vikram

Vikram wrote:TC,

Many thanks for starting this thread and all the accurate information that you provided.

It is a sorry state of affairs. Without going into the legal aspects and history of the property dispute, the fact that an unidentified group of men tried to forcibly enter the premises at odd hours itself is sufficient ground to fear for one's life. I wonder how many people will stay unperturbed, without fearing for their lives, if such a large and vocal group tries to forcibly enter their homes. I do think that the lady had every right to protect herself and her companions. That the police were made aware of the threats she has been receiving and that the police station is just 300 metres away further demonstrates the fact that police, with the best of intentions, at best can be a reacting agent than a pro-active agent. Ultimately it befalls the individual to protect his/her life. Based on what I have read so far, I take my hat off to the lady for standing her ground. I do hope that the murder charges will not stick.

Best-
Vikram

+1

The lady deserves our thanks for enforcing public order in a situation where society's protections had failed.

As the bumper sticker here says: "If you want peace, pray for justice." I certainly hope all parties in this situation receive the justice that is due to them.

I think that under the circumstances she did the right thing.Her right of self defense stood activated.Most of the police investigations are not guided by the facts. On the contrary it is guided by what is projected in media.Police panders to popular flavour of the day as long as it does not run contrary to ruling political party`s interest.I think this is true of other states as well now a days.In India justice comes to those who fight for it with their arms. Those who do not have muscle power need guts, grit and determination to get it. X factor is media. It is very important to have media project one`s story in the right direction.